195
comments:

Great Test!!!!!!!!!!!USB on production series? Fabulous!!!!Need to install drivers for Runcore 1,8 or 2,5 or Pci-e SSD?I don´t remenber somethink about this...Image program is inside SSD or need to get one? Nothing holds new SSD? In HDD versions, happens the same?JKK, what about touch screen on HP Mini 1000?I see an 10,2" (not Solderlees) on FidoHub.com.The point is where solder cables...Happy New Year, JKK!!!!!!

For those of you with the stock SSD, you can cure the scrolling issue JKK had in Firefox when a page loads by going into options, privacy and unchecking the "Keep my history for at least..." option. This prevents Firefox 3 from performing the write operation that appears as lag on slow-performing drives when a page is loading.

So will this be tested on the aspire one or are MDD coming up with another drive for that purpose. There are more aa1's out there now than eee's but we always seem to get left behind in the upgrades dept. :-(

From what I gather, people have been installing the Samsung HS122JC, a 8mm HDD for their Mini 1000. So by that logic, the 8mm 128GB RunCore SSD should fit!

The next best question is, when are the pre-orders from MDD going to ship? I just put in my order for the 64GB SSD :) I noticed that the status changed from shipping first week of January to "early" January :(

i have a completely unrelated question... i have a runcore 64gb ssd in my touchscreen 901... i have it divided into two partitions. one is windows xp and one is windows 7 (i also have ubuntu on the 4gb internal ssd). windows 7 is lightning fast, but xp seems to have really slowed down. it is worse now then it was when installed on the internal drive. i do have a lot of programs on it, but i have it bare bones in msconfig startup. i tried running atto disk benchmarking but it just says "error could not find file benchtst.$$$". is there any problem with what i am doing or a way i can make it fast again??Thanks a lot

I'd like to repeat Esse's question above that hasn't been answered. There was an "internal" USB cable and jack that you removed to install this drive. Does this mean that you lose one out of two USB ports on the Mini 1000 if you install it? That's a big compromise, which will make my decision to do this much harder.

I'm gonna buy the MI (Ubuntu) version of the Mini 1000 once it's released, and apparently there's an special USB drive that sits flush in the case in that unit. I don't know where it's located, or if installing the larger SSD will affect this option as well. Any idea?

xp was the standard install and i used acronis to clone it onto the runcore ssd (yay for the slave usb). i then used a livecd version of ubuntu running from an sd card to install ubuntu on the 4gb internal ssd. then when the windows 7 beta came out i partitioned the 64gb runcore drive into a 40 and 20 with gparted. xp was left on the 40 and i installed 7 on the 20.... i dont see any problems with this but for some reason i has killed my xp preformance

The USB thing he removed is the "internal" USB slot the HP Mini 1000 has. This is in addition to the two "standard" USB ports it has. You can buy a special USB memory card from HP that will go in here, though I'm not sure why since SD cards fit just fine. In the future HP has said they will/might release WWAN cards for this slot or something. Otherwise I presume this slot is pretty useless. Obviously it isn't offered if you buy a Mini 1000 with a hard disk drive rather than an SSD.

@crackhead If anything, SSDs should use much less power due to the fact they _don't_ have a spinning platter. Exactly how much of a battery boost they provide remains to be seen, so I'd be interested in jkk's opinion too.

Bit the bullet and bought the 128GB RunCore. Can't wait until it arrives!!!

How is this a good drive? The small writes and reads are COMPLETE crap, meaning that RunCore probably decided to use the crappy JMicron controller that has already given hundreds of people system stalling problems when used as OS drives. Unacceptable. I for one would much rather get a 32GB Mtron and deal with the small capacity rather than live with all the stalling issues that this thing will produce.

You can prove this to yourself and the rest of us who are unconvinced by doing a follow up review:

1. Install Vista directly onto this drive from the Vista install disk. DON'T simply clone a working copy of Vista onto it. Drives with the JMicron controller consistently fail even a simple clean OS install because the latencies are too high. The resulting install will have lots of errors, if it even boots into it at all.

2. Extract a 5GB file and during the middle of extraction try to load up a webpage. Does it pop up instantly, or only after the extraction is done?

3. Create a 200MB archive and extract a 5GB archive at the same time. How well does your system run now? How many times does the system pause? What's the time difference between doing both at the same time and doing each on their own?

You can read up on other issues and tests here:http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403&p=7

Let me also add that I would LOVE it if the drive passed the above tests. It would be like salvation at hand for me. I've been extremely frustrated with the current crop of budget SSDs that all seem to have the JMicron controller and the accompanying performance and OS install issues. It's just that the depth of the initial review isn't enough to convince me (not enough hardcore multitasking and HDD intensive tasks like virus scan + extracting + everyday tasks at the same time).

In particular I am very interested in the Iometer test on 4K random writes that was done here:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403&p=8

and also the latency as you increase the number of outstanding I/Os.

JMicron controllers have latency up to 1 second for a depth of just one I/O. That's your lag right there, and it gets worse as you increase the depth.

Hardcore multitasking together with virus scanning and extracting at the same time are not for mobile computers!!

I review all devices and accessories here for mobility.

We use these SSDs on devices with single core cpus from 500mhz to 1.6ghz with 512MB to 1GB RAM... so Hardcore multitasking together with virus scanning and extracting at the same time can't happen anyway.

the gain of ssd's should be, to be able to allow those tasks on mobile computers.. i can do those with ordinary disks on mobile computers with ease, i can do this even much better with an mtron ssd or similar.

an ssd should perform better than an ordinary drive, those don't.

and i still try to install vista, xp, win7 on the pcie version for asus eee. it is not possible, it always fails.

JKK, you will be falling behind the times soon if you do not test such drives for multitasking performance. I'm running on an LG X100 with a C2D, 4GB RAM, nVidia dedicated graphics, and guess what? It's only 2.2lb with a 10" screen, certainly something that I would call as close to an ultramobile powerhouse as you can get with current technology. The only thing setting it back is its 1.8" PATA HDD. There are professionals out in the field who demand power in a mobile package. They will certainly argue that multitasking IS a requirement for mobile computers.

And I wouldn't call something like virus scanning while surfing or extracting files while surfing something that's not going to happen on mobile computers running Atoms and below. Virus scanning is, well, a requirement when you've been breached. Extracting is a requirement for some multimedia files. All things that these mobile computers should be able to do as portable work machines, simple netbooks, or lightweight multimedia machines. It's unacceptable for a machine to be able to do nothing else while these operations are in progress.

And really, how difficult is it to just run a few more benches and tests just for the sake of completeness?

With that said, the 2MB/s 4K write, while still flippin' slow, gives me hope that this drive is different because in the past the 4K writes have been abysmal. Your report that Vista installs just fine from a DVD also brings me hope that its latency isn't (that) horrible. But this is hope, not a confirmation.

Joony, yes, this is if and only if it uses JMicron. But ALL low-end MLC SDD drives have been using JMicron up to this point. Is this little thing from Runcore going to be the exception?

Another vote for the follow-up tests. Preliminary results look good, but people use computers differently. It would be good to know if the RunCore drive is really something special or just a cheap version of the other disappointing SSDs out there.

The problem here is that I'm not following nor testing highend sub notebooks, so I don't have access to C2D, 4GB RAM, nVidia equipped devices.

On my videos, I said " shese SSDs are perfect for UMPCs and netbooks " so mayde not for highend subs? I don't know.. The speed of these SSDs could still be slowing faster devices but for sure not Atom or VIA based PCs.

I will do some more tests later, but please understand that the main thing on my tests is to show how much faster or slower the device i'm testing goes with added SSD etc. If I can feel the difference is huge, there is no point of going into deep details with these devices.

Even 10 inch netbooks are a bit "out of scale" here at jkkmobile. My own intresses are on MIDs, UMPCs and on the smallest netbooks ( 8,9 inches, less than 1kg )

Please show me what king of test you would like to see and where I can get the sw/settings. ( I briefly checked out iometer and i have no clue of the setting.. )

Get the Windows binary of Iometer from the downloads section of www.iometer.org. Install, start Iometer. Your system name should appear in the topology box on the left side, select it and the targets box on the right should show drives available for testing. Check the box next to the drive to test. The red slash through the drive means it hasn't created the test file yet. It will do this automatically when the test starts and fill up the free space on the drive with it. Select the Access Specifications tab and click the New button. Increment the Transfer Request Size to 4K, leave the random slider at 100% random, move the read/write slider to 100% write. Name the test if you wish, and select OK. Select the new test in the far right box, and add it to the tests to be run. At this point, you're ready to go, hit the green flag, a dialog will pop up for where to save the CSV results file. It will take a while to create the test file, and it will show Preparing disk while this occurs. You'll automatically go to the results tab, where you might want to move the slider to 5 or 10 seconds to get results updates. After a few minutes of running, report the results, particularly total I/Os per second, average I/O response time, and maximum I/O response time. You can use the test setup time to bound the test further if you're feeling ambitious. Thanks for indulging us :)

Yeah, definitely thanks for indulging us. And while I understand that your focus is on UMPCs and MIDs, you are still reviewing a computer component that can be used in any number of different systems.

1. The IOmeter test should be a good one if you can figure it out with the help of the above post.

2. Also try and do the #2 thing that I outlined above:

2. Extract a 5GB file and during the middle of extraction try to load up a webpage. Does it pop up instantly, or only after the extraction is done?

I own a Kohjinsha SH8 running a 800MHz A110. I frequently find myself doing the above operation (extracting a 5GB video file that's been archived while browsing the web waiting for it to get done extracting). I see this as totally within the realm of a UMPC.

The JMicron issues aren't really about throughput (the 2MB/s thing) but really more about latency, small cache, and not being able to handle multiple I/Os as a result.

"With the JMicron based solutions, if you try and write too much to the drive (and trust me, it won’t take a lot) and the buffers get full, the controller tells the system that it’s not ready to write more data and you get a pause.

When you cause the JM602’s internal buffer to overflow, your system runs in bullet-time. Applications take much longer to launch and close, windows take longer to appear, and there are distinct pauses in anything you want to do that involves the disk. Want to send an IM? Well, that writes to an IM log - you can expect a pause before you can send your IM. Loading webpages is the worst, reading from and writing to the cache wreaks havoc on these cacheless MLC drives. Just for kicks I tried loading AnandTech while I was extracting a 5GB file on the SuperTalent 60GB MLC, it took over 10 seconds for the website to load. Once the JM602 was free to fulfill the read request, the website just popped up - but until then it was like my DNS was failing. It’s a lot like what happens to your notebook if you try and do too much, the disk quickly becomes a bottleneck.

Thankfully, as we've already seen, this problem is only limited to JMF602 based MLC drives. The SLC drives and the Intel MLC are totally fine, so while I'll include these problematic MLC drives in today's comparison, let me state now that I would not purchase one.

JMicron's roadmap shows a new controller next year with an integrated ARM core as well as support for external DRAM, which could alleviate these problems."

Well, it's technically "next year," so here's to hoping that it's a new controller.

3. I also second the request to open this up and see if you can spot the JMicron chip:

Ouch, that max response on the longer test is certainly indicative of what Anandtech was poking at. Are the other figures also from the short test? I noticed the JMF602 has a sata II interface, so if it uses that chip, our only hope of different performance might come from a pata/sata converter bottleneck. Thanks for the test JKK. It might be worthwhile to figure out a repeatable test with iometer since the Anandtech article talks about this causing annoying lags with things like IM'ing and browsing, which I think we can all agree are valid UMPC tasks.

The 1060.5 ms MAX for longer test period doesn't bother me that much. The only requirement for this to happen is if ONE write out of hundreds took this long (I mean, it's the MAX latency encountered, it could just be one write here and there.). It's not surprising that this number doesn't change the longer you run the test. I think the average I/O response is what's important, and that spec is incredible.

Anandtech did say that JMicron was coming out with a new chip this year. Does the chip on this Runcore still say JMF602 on it, or is it a different model number? It'd be great to identify it so that people can know what to look for in the future.

Did there happen to be TWO JMF602 chips? The new G.Skill Titan SSD drives fix the stuttering issues despite still using JMF602 chips by have TWO of them onboard, tied to each other in a SATA configuration, thereby lowering the load on each chip and alleviating latency. Wondering if Runcore is using the same tech or some other clever way of working around the weaknesses of the JMF602.

JKK, do you have any other, non-RunCore, SSDs that might make use of a JMF602 you could test with iometer that might help provide some confidence that we're stressing the drive similar to how Anandtech did? A huge thanks for all this testing too!

Great link Joony, it certainly sounds like these must have the B rev chip. If MDD had these in stock, I probably would have placed an order already, but the lack of instant gratification is making me put it off until more data comes in. Please report back on your findings.

Anandtech's JMF602 chip photo (Note a B on the lower right, this is what JKK might have seen?). Anandtech supposedly reviewed a Revision A chip considering their poor results.http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/storage/Intel/SSDlaunch/images/jmicron.jpg

Bit Tech's picture of the G.Skill Titan JMicron chips, which have been confirmed by JMicron to use the Revision B chips (Note the B on the lower right as well):http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2009/01/g-skill-titan-256gb-ssd-review/6.jpg

You'll note that both Rev. A and B have a B on the chip. Rev. B chips look like they don't have a "JMF602B" blatantly written on them.

Seeing the same thing on my Mini 1000 with the 32GB ZIF 1.8 drive. USB works, but connecting to the ZIF, the drive doesn't show up in the BIOS. Checked the cable several times, even tried it "upside down" in case i was mixing things up. Nada.

I'm 100% certain the cable is inserted fully. ZIF cables are all the same right? Is there any chance that there needs to be some kind of special cable?

I am having the same issue with my 64GB and my Mini 1000. The hard-drive light comes on and stays on at boot, with the drive never showing up in the BIOS. Did I just spend $200 for this thing to not work?

I am having the same problem. I received the Runcore 64gb 1.8 SSD yesterday and have not been able to get my Fujitsu p1620 to recognize it. USB works fine (I was even able to clone my disk via usb) but the ZIF connection will not work. Same as above--will not show up in BIOS either.

Ack, why are so many people having trouble?! We know this should at least work in the Mini 1000, per JKK's demo. I'm still curious of the make and model of drives being replaced. It seems there's a difference in the thickness of the cable used between Hitachi and Toshiba drivers (Toshiba uses a thinner cable). Probably worth double/triple checking that the cable is fully inserted and secure.

I have used several different cables on many different computers and enclosures with no effect, the ZIF connection on the SSD is not working. USB works fine, but that is irrelevant! I am really considering sending mine back now.

I've played around with it for hours. For my situation, it is not that the cable is not inserted enough. It only goes in so far before the ribbon cable deforms. In addition, I notice on the runcore zif connector, the cable does not stay in place very well. On my toshiba HD, friction is enough to hold the cable in place. On the runcore, the connection seems very loose.

(also, I couldn't even get the ssd to work with an enclosure, unlike others)

I had the same problem with the runcore 128gb ssd in my HD mini 1000. I tried putting the cable in every which way and was sure I had it seated. Although the USB connection works fine the zif connection does not and the drive is not recognized in the bios.

Also WARNING....the 128GB Runcore does not really fit in the Mini 1000. Even removing all cushions from the case the drive is a little too tall and the keyboard will not seat well in the upper right corner. Do not try any of the 8 or 9 mm thick SSDs in the HP Mini...

This is very frustrating....I am awaiting a 64GB from MDD to see I have any more luck with that.

Yeah...this is whack. MDD and RunCore have some explaining to do. I don't think I have heard of anyone who got theirs to work from this week's shipment. Mine is on backorder til the next shipment, and I'm wondering if I should cancel...

Just curious if everyone who is having trouble with the RunCore SSD is upgrading the HD version of the Mini 1000?

I picked up the 32GB RunCore SSD for my HP Mini 1000 (1033CL - 60GB HD) and ran into the same issue upgrading. SSD is not recognized by the BIOS. My SSD does function via the USB cable as others have mentioned.

The one JKK upgraded in the video was an SSD version and the zif cable appears to be a bit different than the HD version, could just be the angle of the camera shot though. From my understanding the zif cables should all be the same but I have no way to confirm this as I only have the HD version.

As a side note, the cable is loose on the SSD side because of how thin it is. Since the cable is one-sided you can compensate for this by adding a thin strip of scotch tape on the backside of the cable on the SSD side. This allows the zif to better grab the cable and ensures the contacts meet. However, the drive is still not recognized.

sorry to hear , the runcore ssd cant be regconiseed by many other machine.......firstly is the hp mini , i though is bios locked (Bad HP , always do the bios locked ) ..now fujitsu , dell also report , not recognised , i believe problem will be on runcore ssd problem , may be is socket or ic chip. runcore may be lack of QC test.and rushing to deliver the order to meet the need.till today , still wondering wait JKK runcore sdd tested without any problem ?

Ok folks, the thread at http://myhpmini.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=163&start=36has a Runcore/MDD spokesperson on it, Matt just said that the issue is an irregular ZIF connector that Runcore used. Adapter cables are in the works. Check that thread for more info!

JKK, or any HP Mini 1000-1030 owners.. Does your keyboard-s touch the LCD when closed? Also does the LCD Rubber stops touch the base of the computer when closed? Just purchased this HP an hour ago and my keyboard is wavy, lid + keyboard looks like it touches each other, and the side Lid Rubber Pads never touch the base, unless you squeeze the two together.. I own a asus eee and the build Q is so much better then the HP? Unless my HP is defective? I had to trade in my Acer One today because it Quit Posting and the store didnt have another to replace it with. So An extra 100+ dollars and had to get this HP 1030nr. Even the build Q was better on the acer one, but I think it overheated for some reason? The fan would always stay running. Anyway thats the pasted, and I did love the Acer one, But it Died and now I dont trust them. The Acer Support was Unreal too. Thank G I could exchange it for this unit, besides the extra cost.

the worrisome problem is that according to JKK's video, the HP zif cable is a very short one. On the Fujitsu, it is long (around 3-4 inches) and L-shaped. Hopefully, the fix is an actual adapter that will work with any cable...

Dear My Digital Discount customers,We regret to inform you that the latest batch of RunCore Zif drives, that were shipped out last week, may possibly have a problem with the connection. We are currently investigating this issue further and we will be sure to keep you contacted with the latest updates as we get more details.At this point, we ask that if you have had similar issues with your Zif drive to please be patient as we are looking to correct this issue as quickly as possible.If you have any concerns or questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at orders@mydigitaldiscount.com.We truly apologize for this inconvenience and we thank you for your patience and understanding.Sincerely,MDD

Hey, anyone here have a chance to play and look at a Dell Mini 9? Want to know if it has any issues like Over Heating, BIOS Corruption "Like The Acer Aspire One, Mine did it with the lastest Bios, Don't want to worry about Recovering the bios every few weeks" - and Or build Q? If you had the choice, HP MINI 10in version, or the Dell Mini 9? I do own the HP MINI 10in "Feels Cheap to me still like it but not love it" and a Asus EEEPC. Like the Asus build better and it has mucho more batt life. 6 cell batt and small LCD.. Or just tell me what you think of the Dells build.. One thing about the HP is the LCD Viewing angle stops to short Its not a big deal. Thanks in advance

Ok, I'm a bit confused. The ZIF connectors on HDDs should all be standard, right? For example, the Fujitsu U820, which doesn't work here, uses the Toshiba MK1214GAH 120GB HDD. I don't think that the MK1214GAH would be designed ONLY to work with Fujitsu systems, would it? If the MK1214GAH is universal, then that means that Fujitsu must use a proprietary cable that leads to a proprietary ZIF connector on the motherboard.

People who have the U820 (or another Fujitsu system): does the Runcore drive work with the ZIF cable that came with the Fujitsu?

Just a question JKK,is that ZIF cable you are using simply a normal that is long enough to be twisted around? Or is a special cable designed for "flipped" connectors? My Mini is still not reading my drive after using a cable long enough to twist like yours.... just curious.

Hey everyone,The Runcore problem has been fixed. We found that the ZIF connector on the Runcore SSD is conversed, so everyone needs what is commonly known as a twisted ZIF cable, it has the leads on the top of one end and the bottom of the other end. We will be getting these cables and shipping them to you as soon as possible.We have already confirmed 100% that with this fix, these will work flawlessly in the HP mini 1000 and the Everun Note.If your computer is not one of these two, here are some options:1) If the ZIF connector in your computer is completely removable, we have confidence that the twisted ZIF connector will work fine, and we are more than happy to ship you one when we get them.2) The new batch of runcore drives will work in all computers, so we are more than happy to issue you an RMA and replace it for you when the new batch comes in.If you choose option 1, sit tight, because we will ship your twisted ZIF connector to you shortly. If you choose option 2, please contact Chris either by phone at 1-866-217-1800 (315-343-0090) or via email at orders@mydigitaldiscount.com.We thank all of you for your continued patience and support of our store, and we appreciate you helping us make Runcore the name to look for when someone says SSD.Douglas HareMydigitaldiscount.com

Are they talking about the regular cable that has real wires rolled up into a cable? If thats the case, Does the HP 1000 have enough room for a twisted wire? If its the wire I'm thinking about then I don't think it will. 20-30mm is all you have to play with..

JKK, just curious...why are you running your tests on only a 100MB test partition?

All we are seeing here is the file-system caching performance and the effect of the SSDs front-end DRAM cache. These tests have nothing to do whatsoever with the performance users will get in the real world.

If you are unable to run a full suite of application tests, here's a MUCH better benchmarking technique.

1) Use IOmeter (like Intel does for it's spec sheets). IOMeter was developed originally by Intel...FYI.

2) test reads and writes SIMULTANEOUSLY so you can get an idea of what these things will do in the real world, where reads and writes are going on in tandem. I'd suggest 67%/33% Read/Write like Intel uses on their SSDs.

3) set the queue depth to no more than three, which is what perfmon will tell you is a "real world" workload. Do NOT crank up the queue depth to 32, as some reviewers will do, because those kinds of queue depths will never be seen in real-world applications.

4) use a test partition or file that is at least 1/3rd the capacity of the device, or at least 5x-to-10x larger than system DRAM, so you can see the performance of the device, not system cache.

5) when you then run a comparison test on a fast HDD, use the same partition/file size as you used for SSD.

You'll see a VERY different picture, one that looks like this...

http://www.intel.com/performance/mobile/sata/sata.htm

...where we now see that the best and newest (and most heavily hyped) Flash SSD "beats" an old, slow, worst-in-class, $45 HDD by a measly 16%.

http://www.intel.com/performance/mobile/sata/SSD_config.htm

I can't wait to see JKK and Intel start publishing tests against 2008 model best-in-class HDD! IDC says they are actually FASTER than even the best SSDs they tested, but their report costs $10,000.

Until then? Sign me up for Flash SSD!! I wanna pay 10X more per Gigabyte and get performance that's only 16% faster than a 3yr old $45 HDD!!!

This drive is a 1.8" PATA / ZIF HDD. The machines that this drive is intended for will ONLY take 1.8" PATA drives.

It should not be compared to 1.8" SATA HDDs. It should not be compared to 2.5" HDDs. It should not be compared to 3.5" HDDs. It probably shouldn't even be fully compared to the 32GB Mtron 1.8" ZIF HDD because 32GB is as high as the Mtron goes. Runcore offers 64GB and 128GB which doesn't even EXIST in any other drives other than the Runcores.

In this case I would imagine the Runcore drives would handedly beat any and all rotary 1.8" PATA drives in real world usage, drives that were originally intended for iPods, not laptops.

But the tests that "Anonymous" posted a couple posts above would be interesting to see anyway.

Well said rabid. Also, a point on the extended iometer stuff, don't confuse filesystem testing with block testing. For filesystem, it makes sense to do test runs that can't be completely handled by the buffer cache. For block testing, which iometer is doing aiui, you can bypass the cache at the OS level, so as long as you're testing more than the cache on the physical disk, your numbers should be valid. It still sounds a lot more like the workload you might expect on a desktop than on something using a 1.8" drive though.

JKK, You are a great resource for information.I recently bought a Mini 1030NR. The HP web site indicates the maximum RAM possible is 1GB which it already has. Any chance a 2GB might work? Also, after your great You-Tube video on replacing the SSD, I'm considering an upgrade from the 16GB installed to, perhaps, the 64GB RunCore 1.8 SSD. Any idea if this machine will accept this new memory? Thanks!!Pete

JKK... I just installed the 2GB RAM on the HP 1030NR using a PC2-5300 667MHz stick. It WORKS!I cannot forgive HP for telling me otherwise. BAD HP.Thank you!I've been told the 64GB RunCore SSD I ordered may be shipped this week. I'll keep you posted.

After reading this "how to" it inspired me to buy a 64 gig 1.8" Runcore for my Q1UP-V. Hard drives fail at altitude.

Yesterday (Feb 25 09) I spent 3 hours wondering what I was doing wrong to make the drive not work. Finally I found a post on the MacRumors forum. The drives MyDigitalDicount are currently shipping will only work in a Mini HP 1000 because of the pin layout.

So if you are having problems, that is why. You will have to wait until the next shipment, which I am going to do. I do want to point out the MDD is providing good customer service on this.

JKK - I got my RUNCORE 1.8 32GB recognized on my BIOS, fresh install of XP from HP mini recovery disc, but its slower than my stock SSD!The windows progress bar wrpas around 8-9 times at boot up. My stock did 1 1/2 - 2. The RUNCORE is busy when I first use IE for about 20 seconds and I cant do nothing else. Im also getting random hang ups of about 10 seconds where I can do anything else ( 2-3 times an hour ). Shutdown is way slower to. I have done NOTHING else but fresh install of XP. Can you please address this with your test ( confirm or unconfirm ) Its soo bad that I went back to the stock SSD

Thanks JKK. Your in-depth test and analysis really help me to decide and upgrade my HP mini to the Runcore ssd for the sake of performance gains. All I need now, is to wait for a good looking 6 cell battery for my mini and it'll be a perfect little machine! Kudos!

cool video JKK, all the important details are there!I see you also are great in following up our questions on the board, kudos for that!

Here is my question - how does the battery life with the runcore ssd compare to the original ssd or (even better) hdd. perhaps people that have already upgraded can chime in on that questionCheers,Trin

Well my first RUNCORE failed..whcih I waited a month for.....I waited almost 3 more weeks to get a replacement on Friday.......Ill try this one out and see what happens...Ill let you guys know but if this doesnt work, forget RUNCORE..\

Oh did I mention its been almost 2 months since I ordered my 64GB? and I still havent received it....

Got my replacement RUNCORE and it still sucks....slow on the bootup.....random SSD activity that wont let me do nothing for 15-20 seconds....I give up...Im looking to go to MTron or the Runcore PRO ( non case )...anyone have experience with these?

I have a mtron in my hp mini ..works great. I bought it on ebay from Korea $159 32gig. I had to buy a hard drive case with a mini usb for $14 to transfer the image from one hard drive to another. Only problem i had with installation was that the zif cable needed a little bit of 'force' to insert it into the hard drive.

I am trying the RUncore Pros ( non cased ) to see if those are crap like the 1.8" (cased ones ).Im really disappoited in JKK. As far I know, he HAS NOT addressed the MANY MANY issues alot of that bought RUNCORES becuase of his video are experiencing. I would have at least expeted an update detailing the problems, alternatives, etc

Hello. Has anyone had any experience with Samsung's 64GB SSD # MCCOE64GEMPP ? I'd like to go up to a 64GB SSD and it seems that they are the only ones out there with SLC rather than MLC in that size. I've seen them on ebay for about $400. JKK, have you had any experience with these?

Hi nice Blog.phone time card Online Time Clock-Employee Punch Clock-LaborTimeTracker ensures the privacy and security of our customer data. All account, punch and billing data is held with very high security.

Sure I saw this asked earlier but cant see a direct response; if you have the 60GB hard drive version, then how much quicker will the SSD be - the original vodeo compared a 'small' SSD with a bigger one and it was noticabley quicker. But is it really worth the extra money given it is a significant proportion of the purchase price. Nikodemus

Does anybody have one of the Internal USB cables that they want to sell? I really want to buy one. Please post if you do and I will buy it from you. Thenks, -I am Shawn, you can email me at, sftp@cox.net

I think an updated version on this RUNCORE 1.8 on the Mini 1000 is due. One that addresses the MANY MANY problems reported with this drive.....Stuttering, slow slow bootups, etc etc.Ive personally been through 2 RUNCORE 64 1.8s and 2 RUNCORE 64GB Pros with no success.....Im not blaming you for the errors...just saying that you should address this in your video since I know alot of people based their expectations on your video...including myself

I just tried the install of a MTRON 1.8" 32GB SSD into my Mini 1030NR. First of all, as was mentioned earlier, the ribbon cable had to be, ahemmmm, persuaded into the new SSD. BUT, more importantly, the SSD ZIF slot is slightly off center so it can fit into the Mini's space correctly HOWEVER this places the SSD upside down and the cable must then be TWISTED. Sure, the SSD can be "forced" to fit the other way but its not "right". Some velco under the SSD helped to level everything so the keyboard wasn't effected. FYI guys. I'm returning the MTRON....maybe.

I installed the MTRON 32GB SSD last night into my Mini 1030NR. I found a tutorial online and had NO problems other than the extra effort to insert the FPC into the SSD ZIF. The MTROM label faces you so the offset connector isn't an issue. Some padding under the SSD did indeed keep everything level so the keyboard remained flat. Man is this thing fast...less than 45 sec to boot and about 7 sec to shutdown.

Finally received my 128GB Runcore SSD. It took 3 months (baskordered). Installed it into the HP Mini 1030NR. The drive came with a trial copy of Acronis for WIndows and SuperDuper for Mac. Cloning was easy. Opening the HP was as easy as your video showed, installing the drive was a little more difficult. The alignment of the zif connector on the production drive is offset from the motherboard. IT took many tries to get it to fit without pulling out the cable. FInal result... The HP is now a dream! WHat a difference the speed makes. The drive size also means I can install all my software without using an extrernal drive. Kudos for you :-)

I'm pretty pleased...after a few months waiting and lots of scary posts about the RunCore SSD, I received my RunCore Pro I ZIF 1.8" 32GB SSD. The installation was as easy as JKK's video, except as warned by other posts, the ZIF cable needs to be FIRMLY inserted into the SSD slot. On my first install, the SSD was not recognized by the system. I tried again after replacing the ZIF cable with the same length ZIF cable that was provided in the RunCore kit. I really had to pinch it firmly to insert into the SSD ZIF slot. Booted right up the second time (Yay!). Really glad the kit comes with a USB drive case and cable that can probably be used with any similar SSD, and also includes a custom 4-pin to USB cable that only works with the RunCore -- this made the cloning process a breeze. Once the HP Mini booted up successfully on the second try, I could see the difference immediately. The browser puts up web pages faster with no lag, and FINALLY my MS Outlook mail setup is usable. The system used to hang up on these apps, but no more. I'm a happy guy.

Be careful here. I installed a 128 GB SSD and now get blue screen several times a week. 0xF4, 0x7A, 0x3. I can force the error when running defrag. Always happens at 7%. XP and Diskeeper 9 defrag routines. I ran GRC SpinWrite on the SDD and the disk checkout good for hardware issues... Is there a driver problem? Submitted a report to RunCore, but never got a reply.

FYI, After a 6 month wait from MDD I received my RunCore IV 64g SSD ZIF today. I was able to clone it and get the original drive on the new SSD. When I went to install it in my HP 1000 I was having problem with the comp seeing the hard drive. The instructions that come with the runcore are very vague.

Check out the 2 videos on youtube for visual directions. http://www.youtube.com/mydigitaldiscount

How does he remove the "internal" USB slot the HP Mini 1000 has? I just received the same RunCore Pro 32GB, and I can't remove the internal USB slot by hand as he did. Are there any screws that I need to remove first?

Just installed the RunCore 64gb SSD. Acronis cloning required Norton to be dissabled. Otherwise no probs. The SSD DOES fit into the factory case for mounting with no prob. Also upgraded RAM to 2gb. The tests are accurate. Blinding speed for this HP Mini 1000. Highly recommended. Kind of wish I'd goe for the 128gb version but at $430 it was too rich for my blood and i have enough storage for my apps. Don't hesitate on this installation.